There was a time when a politician in trouble at home would choose to make an official visit abroad as a way of lightening the load. If the strain on President Clinton's face in Israel yesterday was anything to go by, the load has just increased. Pursued by impeachment in the United States, President Clinton arranged to visit Israel and Gaza to celebrate the Wye River agreement which he nego-
tiated with remarkable persistence and which re-activated the Middle East peace process after almost a year of dangerous and violent stagnation. Now he finds himself trying to rescue the peace process once more, with the Israeli government in disarray and surely drawing nearer to a dissolution of the Knesset and a fresh general election.
Meanwhile, both sides to the argument continue to cause problems of the sort which would cause any objective mediator to tear out his hair with frustration. It is true that the Palestinians have just cause for complaint against the Israelis on a number of counts, including settlements, land seizure, and the release of Palestinian prisoners which was promised under the Wye agreement but which was rendered bogus by the Israelis' release of large numbers of petty criminals instead of political prisoners. The Israelis can also complain of
continuing Palestinian violence and the inability of the Palestinian leadership to provide security guarantees for Israelis.
Yet, against this backdrop, today's visit by President Clinton to Gaza is overshadowed by the wholly synthetic row over how the Palestinians propose to fulfil their promise to abrogate PLO charter clauses which call for the destruction of Israel. The Israelis want the Palestine National Council to vote on it while the PLO leadership wants a show of hands and applause to indicate assent. This debate is truly in the realms of angels-dancing-on-the-heads-of-pins, but there is nothing President Clinton can do about it except grind his teeth. His visit to Gaza today is a symbolic nod towards Palestinian statehood and that is important. Beyond that, all he can do is give money and keep the combatants talking.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article